California Supreme Court Watch

#22-204 Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., S274671. (G059860, G060198; nonpublished opinion; Orange County Superior Court; 30-2019-01103801.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. This case presents issues regarding the maintenance of representative claims for statutory civil penalties under the Private Attorney General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). (See Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) ___ U.S. ___ [142 S.Ct. 1906, ___ L.Ed.2d ___].)

Petition for review granted: 7/20/2022

Issues ordered limited: 8/01/2022

The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Whether an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that are “premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by” the aggrieved employee (Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. __, __ [142 S.Ct. 1906, 1916] (Viking River Cruises); see Lab. Code, §§ 2698, 2699, subd. (a)) maintains statutory standing to pursue “PAGA claims arising out of events involving other employees” (Viking River Cruises, at p. __ [142 S.Ct. at p. 1916]) in court or in any other forum the parties agree is suitable.

Case fully briefed: 11/08/2022

Cause argued and submitted: 5/09/2023

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 7/17/2023

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104.)

“The question here is whether an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under PAGA that are ‘premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by’ the plaintiff (Viking River [Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. __ [142 S.Ct. 1906, 1916]]; see §§ 2698, 2699, subd. (a)) maintains statutory standing to pursue ‘PAGA claims arising out of events involving other employees’ (Viking River, at p. __ [142 S.Ct. at p. 1916]) in court. We hold that the answer is yes. To have PAGA standing, a plaintiff must be an ‘aggrieved employee’ — that is, (1) ‘someone “who was employed by the alleged violator”‘ and (2) ‘”against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.”‘ (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 83, 84 (Kim), quoting § 2699, subd. (c).) Where a plaintiff has brought a PAGA action comprising individual and non-individual claims, an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.”

Justice Liu authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.